Skip to main content

About your Search

20121101
20121130
Search Results 0 to 3 of about 4
carolina was the only battleground state that romney won. >> that is correct. florida is still out. this year is turned out to be irrelevant. what did the republicans miss? >> practically anybody who was brown or black, procter we anybody who believes that immigration is an issue that needs to be tackled. was a case where the republican party is stampeding towards prevalence if they don't catch -- stampeding toward irrelevance up to then't catch new america and the changing demographics. you cannot have a ruling coalition that is virtually all white. you had president obama put together this new rising coalition and put together enough of the old democratic coalition to win. he got more than 70% of hispanics. young voters. if you vote once to twice as a democrat, history shows that there will be a lifetime democrats. the republicans are missing the idea of trying to expand their percentage of a shrinking electorate. this is becoming a majority- minority nation. this is probably the last time the republicans love a chance to win like this. >> let's talk about why this happened. how
-lehtinen, for so much time as she may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the the gentlewoman from florida is recognized for such time she may consume. ms. ros-lehtinen: i thank the gentleman from indiana for the time. i plan to vote for this bill, h.r. 6156, even though i remain strongly opposed to granting russia permanent normal trade relations or pntr, at this time. i would like to explain the reasons why. those who argued for granting russia pntr, which has until now been prevented by what is known as the jackson-vanik amendment, focus on the supposedly bilateral trade benefits. the issue that concerns me and many members is not trade but human rights. advocates of repeal say that the jackson-vanik amendment is outdated and is purely symbolic and therefore should be disregarded. but in the ira of human rights, madam speaker, symbols can have a very great importance. over the years jackson-vanik has become a sign of the continuing u.s. commitment to human rights in russia and elsewhere. repealing the amendment could very well be interpreted as an indication that our commitment is now w
in the code. that takes the states like california and arizona and florida out of the business and i was telling us how we're going to raise hens and produce eggs. that is an important piece that has been a fight in this campaign, that has not had it not apply, but that is something we have to have in the farm bill, and that is what i want to get into conference by the end of the year. >> i hope if the farm bill comes to the floor is an open roll, the amendment process can take place. i expect the conservatives to -- i do not know if we have the votes for it -- but at least we will start that the debate, separating the food stamp provisions from the other policies. since i am surrounded by other states, the other gentleman would like to speak as well. >> speaking as one who campaign in support of the house bill, without apology, i can tell you the farmers of north dakota like the house bill just fine, and not only did they have an objection to $16 billion more in cuts to a program that has grown 50% in the last four years, it only amounts to a 2% cut in the food stamp program, they l
not to be doing anything new. if you look back, 1961, the court decided a case. hoyt v. florida. she was what we would call a battered woman. one day, her philandering husband had humiliated her to the breaking point. she spied her son's baseball bats in the corner of the room. with all her might, she brought it down on her husband head. he fell to the floor and that was the end of the argument, at the end of the husband, and the beginning of the murder prosecution. so gwendolyn hoyt thought, if there were women on the jury, they might better understand her state of mind. even if they did not acquit her of the murder charge, they might come in with a verdict of manslaughter. she was convicted of murder by an all-male jury. when the case came to the supreme course, we do not understand what this complaint is about. women have the best of all possible worlds. they're not on the jury rolls, but if they want to serve, they can for the asking. think of how many men would sign up if they did not have to. she was told this and was dumbfounded. they did not understand her plight. this was in 1961. the l
Search Results 0 to 3 of about 4